The Court rules that the subcomponent "socio-" in the word "socioeconomic" does not pertain solely to race. On the other hand, it does not, for our purposes, accept that it may be ruled to apply to purely economic substance as the plaintiff submits; this would, in our opinion, reflect an overly redundant usage of the term which would necessitate, for purposes of clarity, the substitution of the unmodified term "economic." However, the plaintiff notes myriad other potential meanings for the subcomponent, such as family and location, and we are sympathetic to this claim.

This ruling should in no way connote substantive agreement with the plaintiff in regard to the specific issue of affirmative action, which the Court will not delve into today. Remanded for further review.

This was amusing to read, but I never stated that I believed that the term "socioeconomic" should be applied to "purely economic substance". In fact, I said quite the opposite. So please don't put words in my mouth, Your Honor.

Earlier quote from plaintiff affirming his position:

"You stated that I interpreted him to mean that if race isn't present, then socio must not be present. I never said that socio must not be present if race is present. OF course it must be present! Race is a social factor, after all. MY problem with his post was that he fails to realize that money can be both a social and an economic variable, because social and economic factors are often intertwined."

JTG's statement that, "Money can be a social factor as well as an economic factor," is taken by the Court to mean that issues that deal only with money, to the absence of other social factors, could be construed as "socioeconomic," a premise that we do not accept.

JTG's statement that, "Money can be a social factor as well as an economic factor," is taken by the Court to mean that issues that deal only with money, to the absence of other social factors, could be construed as "socioeconomic," a premise that we do not accept.

A revised edition of the decision is currently being circulated.

Well you took the statement the wrong way. Anyone who bothered to read all of my posts in the thread would realize that I discussed taking other clearly social factors into account, like family upbringing and circumstances.

It was amusing at first but now it's irritating me. Can you please stop perverting what I say?

Well you took the statement the wrong way. Anyone who bothered to read all of my posts in the thread would realize that I discussed taking other clearly social factors into account, like family upbringing and circumstances.

Well you took the statement the wrong way. Anyone who bothered to read all of my posts in the thread would realize that I discussed taking other clearly social factors into account, like family upbringing and circumstances.

Which is why I agreed with you. Don't argue with a favorable ruling.

At least the court agrees with me, and hopefully Marauder can see that I was right. Thanks Your Honor. I just took the "accept that it may be ruled to apply to purely economic substance as the plaintiff submit" to mean that I said that it could ever be applied in that matter. I'm thoroughly confused because I've been both the plaintiff and the defendant so my head is spinning.

Well you took the statement the wrong way. Anyone who bothered to read all of my posts in the thread would realize that I discussed taking other clearly social factors into account, like family upbringing and circumstances.

Which is why I agreed with you. Don't argue with a favorable ruling.

At least the court agrees with me, and hopefully Marauder can see that I was right. Thanks Your Honor. I just took the "accept that it may be ruled to apply to purely economic substance as the plaintiff submit" to mean that I said that it could ever be applied in that matter. I'm thoroughly confused because I've been both the plaintiff and the defendant so my head is spinning.

*Does a courtroom victory dance*

Yeah, I know, didn't realize this thread was moving so quickly. Would have made more sense if I had left it the way it was.

I have the incredible foresight to avoid arguments that are going to get circular real fast. Hence me just shaking my head.

You lose, Marauder. You can get back to pillaging now.

Well done.

Quote from the Judge:

"However, the defendant notes myriad other potential meanings for the subcomponent, such as family and location, and we are sympathetic to this claim. Therefore, we conclude that the word "socioeconomic" was properly used in the instant case."

The Judge was an unbiased observer, and he/she agreed with me that the word was properly used. The now infamous "Halfie" attacked my use of the word, and you criticized me and my intellectual capacity. Suffice it to say that you have been owned.

You're STILL fighting this strawman. I'm telling you, this is going to get more viciously circular the more we talk about it. You'll continue to beat your dead horse, and I'll continue to tell you it's a dead horse, to which you'll respond, "IT'S NOT A DEAD HORSE, YOU DON'T KNOW ME," while still beating it.

1. "We" did not attack your use of the word. Until you misread Halfie, there was no attack whatsoever.2. If you think a joke barb like "did you fail the LSAT" constitutes "criticizing" your "intellectual capacity", then you need to grow a thicker skin.3. Don't use words that you don't understand.